Chapter 9
Don’t you get the MESSAGE?
It is not extreme to assert that the risk communication process is a series of message conveying.
The5W1H should all be considered when developing your message for a risk situation- When, Who, What, Why, Where and How the message should be addressed is crucial. However, like most factors during risk communication, message developing does not mean showering related publics with “all the information.” Rather, this is a systematic process to provide structured messages according to the needs and desires of the people. Bear in mind though, that the message development is NOT “manipulative, nor is it a substitute for audience analysis or public participation” (p. 143).
Then, what are the people interested in? According to L&M, people generally crave for the “description of the risk,” “risk consequences,” “level of control about the risk and its consequences,” and “exposure information” (p.144). This basically means that people are interested at knowing the risk beyond technological descriptions, levels of danger and how it is going to affect them, what they can do to aid the situation and what the related agencies are doing to improve the risk situation, and finally what -etc.
In this extent, it is interesting and appropriate to understand the messages and channels used to communicate risk regarding HIV/AIDS in Uganda and China. While these two continents have the most dominant number of HIV/AIDS infected population internationally, the communication methods are almost exactly the opposite. In the case of Uganda, the message developers obvious considered who the audience was, what communications channels they were most frequently using, and what terms of messages made more sense to them. Because less than 20% of the whole population in Uganda own television, and more than half of the population are illiterate, it is nonsense to communicate HIV/AIDS information through conventional mass media channels. This is why the local communicators used indigenous media to reach their target audience. Furthermore, the messages they used to communicate touched the cultural essence of Uganda: AIDS prevention messages such as zero-grazing would not have made sense in anywhere else but Uganda. The risk communicators were also very transparent about what the current situation was, and what the public could do to prevent or at the least stop the situation from becoming worse. This is why the communication strategies worked. The message, the channel, and the audience were all taken into context. In the case of China, the initial response to HIV/AIDS risk situation was denial. The government desperately tried to conceal current situations and refused to face the real-world of HIV/AIDS crisis brewing in China. The distinct media structure in China also played a part as controlling possible message channels. The government owned major broadcasting channels: therefore, Chinese citizens had no credible source to attain the risk information. However, rumor started up through the Internet and through word of mouth. The risk situation now developed as a crisis: citizens refused to step outside of their homes and local hospitals were crowded with terrified patients. Even still, the government attempted to silence out the situation. As a result, unnecessary rumors kept flowing and finally revealed the truth which was far less fearful than the rumors.
Although the two countries showed very different approaches regarding the risk situation, I wonder just how much release of information is appropriate. What alarms me the most, and this is pure personally feelings, is that I don’t want to know in-depth information about the truths of HIV/AIDS. I know, “the more you know, the better you understand,” “the power of knowledge,” and all those other famous quotes but I have my own safety-zone and it tells me that I don’t want hard-core information about the disastrous global epidemics that is threatening human beings. This leaves me to a dilemma which I assume many pr practitioners face when they need to communicate with “chickens and ‘fraidy cats”: how can you develop messages that won’t scare the daunted publics? How do you communicate the truth when it is so dreadful?
I leave my questions for those you are wise enough (and brave enough).
Closing comments- Thank you all to those you found our team readings interesting and appropriate. I’m really looking forward to our discussions on Tuesday!
It is not extreme to assert that the risk communication process is a series of message conveying.
The5W1H should all be considered when developing your message for a risk situation- When, Who, What, Why, Where and How the message should be addressed is crucial. However, like most factors during risk communication, message developing does not mean showering related publics with “all the information.” Rather, this is a systematic process to provide structured messages according to the needs and desires of the people. Bear in mind though, that the message development is NOT “manipulative, nor is it a substitute for audience analysis or public participation” (p. 143).
Then, what are the people interested in? According to L&M, people generally crave for the “description of the risk,” “risk consequences,” “level of control about the risk and its consequences,” and “exposure information” (p.144). This basically means that people are interested at knowing the risk beyond technological descriptions, levels of danger and how it is going to affect them, what they can do to aid the situation and what the related agencies are doing to improve the risk situation, and finally what -etc.
In this extent, it is interesting and appropriate to understand the messages and channels used to communicate risk regarding HIV/AIDS in Uganda and China. While these two continents have the most dominant number of HIV/AIDS infected population internationally, the communication methods are almost exactly the opposite. In the case of Uganda, the message developers obvious considered who the audience was, what communications channels they were most frequently using, and what terms of messages made more sense to them. Because less than 20% of the whole population in Uganda own television, and more than half of the population are illiterate, it is nonsense to communicate HIV/AIDS information through conventional mass media channels. This is why the local communicators used indigenous media to reach their target audience. Furthermore, the messages they used to communicate touched the cultural essence of Uganda: AIDS prevention messages such as zero-grazing would not have made sense in anywhere else but Uganda. The risk communicators were also very transparent about what the current situation was, and what the public could do to prevent or at the least stop the situation from becoming worse. This is why the communication strategies worked. The message, the channel, and the audience were all taken into context. In the case of China, the initial response to HIV/AIDS risk situation was denial. The government desperately tried to conceal current situations and refused to face the real-world of HIV/AIDS crisis brewing in China. The distinct media structure in China also played a part as controlling possible message channels. The government owned major broadcasting channels: therefore, Chinese citizens had no credible source to attain the risk information. However, rumor started up through the Internet and through word of mouth. The risk situation now developed as a crisis: citizens refused to step outside of their homes and local hospitals were crowded with terrified patients. Even still, the government attempted to silence out the situation. As a result, unnecessary rumors kept flowing and finally revealed the truth which was far less fearful than the rumors.
Although the two countries showed very different approaches regarding the risk situation, I wonder just how much release of information is appropriate. What alarms me the most, and this is pure personally feelings, is that I don’t want to know in-depth information about the truths of HIV/AIDS. I know, “the more you know, the better you understand,” “the power of knowledge,” and all those other famous quotes but I have my own safety-zone and it tells me that I don’t want hard-core information about the disastrous global epidemics that is threatening human beings. This leaves me to a dilemma which I assume many pr practitioners face when they need to communicate with “chickens and ‘fraidy cats”: how can you develop messages that won’t scare the daunted publics? How do you communicate the truth when it is so dreadful?
I leave my questions for those you are wise enough (and brave enough).
Closing comments- Thank you all to those you found our team readings interesting and appropriate. I’m really looking forward to our discussions on Tuesday!
posted by Min at
2/04/2007 07:05:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home